lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Stable-review] [24/28] USB: xhci - fix unsafe macro definitions
    On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:02:04AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
    > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:31 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
    > >
    > > ------------------
    > >
    > > From: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>
    > >
    > > commit 5a6c2f3ff039154872ce597952f8b8900ea0d732 upstream.
    > >
    > > Macro arguments used in expressions need to be enclosed in parenthesis
    > > to avoid unpleasant surprises.
    >
    > Do you know of any specific uses of these macros where the missing
    > parentheses caused 'unpleasant surprises'?

    In my opinion, this type of fix should be backported even if the current
    code does not appear to be at risk, otherwise a later fix in the kernel
    could cause a serious regression when backported to -stable. For instance,
    if we later have to backport this patch (cut'n'pasted) :

    --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c
    +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-mem.c
    @@ -1033,7 +1033,7 @@ static inline unsigned int xhci_get_endpoint_interval(struct usb_device *udev,
    default:
    BUG();
    }
    - return EP_INTERVAL(interval);
    + return EP_INTERVAL(interval + 1);
    }

    How can you guess that while works in mainline, it breaks -stable ?

    As a user, I'd rather have known valid code in -stable and -longterm at the
    risk of an occasional *temporary* regression than longterm unexplainable
    regressions due to diverging code causing unexpected issues with backported
    fixes.
    Regards,
    Willy



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-04-20 07:55    [W:0.024 / U:61.604 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site